Group Contingency

Study: Kowalewicz & Coffee (2014)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Half of the classrooms contained students with a behavior support plan. There is no indication of whether these students had a formal designation of EBD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Classroom A

Kindergarten

51% Male

68% Caucasian

0% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

0% ELL

0 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 2: Class B

Kindergarten

58% Male

71% Caucasian

0% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

0% ELL

0 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 3: Class C

Kindergarten

51% Male

74% Caucasian

0% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

0% ELL

0 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 4: Class D

1st grade

52% Male

35% Caucasian

71% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

6% with IEP

71% ELL

2 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 5: Class E

1st grade

52% Male

61% Hispanic

39% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

13% with IEP

Not reported

5 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 6: Class F

3rd grade

50% Male

79% Hispanic

100% Free or reduced lunch eligible

17% with IEP

Not reported

3 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 7: Class G

4th grade

56% Male

30% Hispanic

28% Free or reduced lunch eligible

8% with IEP

Not reported

0 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Case 8: Class H

4th grade

53% Male

83% Hispanic

100% Free or reduced lunch eligible

14% with IEP

Not reported

1 students with Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Kowalewicz & Coffee, 2014).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teachers though no additional information on their experience or training is provided.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity data was collected by observing teachers implement the intervention according to a procedural checklist.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: All teachers implemented the intervention in full.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with verbal disruptive behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement ranged from 92% - 100% across all phases.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of verbal disruptive behavior.

N/A

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): Visual inspection was used to determine the overall effectiveness of the intervention for both on-task behaviors.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The data across each of the classrooms is similar in the respect that there were initial elevated rates of disruptive behavior during baseline which were then reduced in level during baseline though there was only variable response to the change in criterion. The second baseline phases tended to be short (i.e., only two data points) but demonstrated a small increase in level. These levels dropped following the reimplementation of the intervention in the second baseline with generally small increases in the third baseline.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual, Small groups, Classroom

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, No training required

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies